JD Williams/Reliable Collections

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Free's UE Diary

Hi Niddy,

I'm with you 100% on this. it erks me, it erks our sols (they were there by the way) and it defies all of the terms of reference and principles which were the foundations of these cases (all 13 of them) at the case management conferences of October 16th. Remember, MBNA actually lost one and ran away from the other two of theirs because of dodgy paperwork. Yet we got what we did from the Queen'Bench Division of the Mercantile Court Manchester. Hence my constant banging on about s234, 108 etc asking why they are any less important than any part of that judgement. No one has ever given a reasonable rational answer to it.

And yes mate both on LB and CAG in the distant past. And yes both IMVHO are pro bank and pro creditor.

regards
Garlok

ermm wrong thread matey

I'll move these two posts shortly, when Garlok realises he's posted on the bloody wrong thread

[garlok]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Hi Niddy,

Just did a stupid and posted a reply from the link on another thread. But yes I am with you 100% on this. It erks me, it erks our sols (they were there) and the judgement goes against all the terms of reference and principles laid down for the hearing for these 13 cases on October 16th 2009.

The annoying thing is I would ask is why some much emphasis is placed on certain bits of this judgement, all in favour of credtiors yet other bits notably s108 and s234 are regarded with less importance. No one has answered that question rationally or reasonably. I am not allowed to cherry pick the bits Ilike and disregard the bits I don't. For gawd's sake he man actually said ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL. What does a creditor not understand about that? Of course ORIGINAL has more than one syllable and perhaps we should not mock the afflicted?

Oh and by the way both on LB and CAG in the distant past. Both IMVHO are now pro bank, pro creditor and pro the whole DECA movement.

regards
Garlok

[The Debt Star]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

DECA movement.

Sorry, what's DECA?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

DCA maybe? (typo)

[The Debt Star]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

I don't think anyone's pro DCA are they? I mean other than creditors, the Government and of course the DCAs. Unless DECA is something that's passed me by on the forums. A record label perhaps lol

[garlok]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

I won't quote Caspar's terms here

Its DECCA DECCA, you're old enough to remember 45's are you?

Anyway it was a typo should have read DCA sorry.

I was not referring to specific posters on those sites, just the mantra they are now applying as a general principle. Trolls are pro DCA by the way. I came through the phase of "unenforceability" on CAG that labelled us all byt he site team as despicable pieces of dog turd because we were "debt dodgers". Now they actually advertise DCAs (some real nasties as well) on their headline banners! AS for LB, well!!

"cough up, P**s off and get a life" Just strip away the patronising claptrap and you get a DCA script. Sorry I have heard most of them before.

Rant over AAD will give them Haemorroids!!!

regards
Garlok

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

However Casp, following the McGuffick debacle I think the DCAs have interpreted that to mean they can do anything they like up to and including court action as none of it is accepted as "enforcement" in the way you and I would interpret enforcement or attempted enforcement. To me that means anything as simple as a phone call or a letter.

After a recent discussion with our sols I am taking another look at the Administration of Justice Act and the Protection from Harrassment Act. Some posters on other forums have said that the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regs have superceded these. But based on the letters I have been instructed to send out in response to any nonsense from the idiots, that is not the case

I'd completely support this tact.

Having Barclaycard puruse my OH, despite receiving a letter from them admitting that they did not have a CCA and would not enforce in court, they still insisted on 'demanding payment' as per the McGuffick case.

I used the 1997 Protection from Harrassment Act and specifically quoted this part of the Act at them:

1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

I informed them that their continued phone calls and letters, after admitting they had no legal recourse, would be considered harrassment, and if they continued their course of action I would be instructing solicitors to consider action taking them to court in relation to a breach of this act.

Resulting outcome - letter of apology from Barclaycard and no contact or correspondance for the last 6 months.

As always, documentation and proving evidence is key, so keep and record EVERYTHING

[The Debt Star]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Good post Crispy.

[garlok]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Yes SnV
Section 1 is the one mentioned in particular with reference to what they get up to and is always to be thrown at them. Professional legal advice.

regards
Garlok

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Good post Crispy.

I try........

Or is that trying?

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Yes SnV
Section 1 is the one mentioned in particular with reference to what they get up to and is always to be thrown at them. Professional legal advice.
regards
Garlok

It definately had the desired effect!

I have never known Barclaycard to respond so quickly to any letter before sent to them so it certainly rattled their cage.



Best

SnV

[garlok]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

They are my pet hate as well Crispy.



Barclays Queue Here!

Didn't see this from me on another thread?

regards
Garlok

[The Debt Star]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Gentlemen, I beg to differ. NO ONE detests Barclays more than I. I shudder when I walk past one of their branches.

[csl]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

http://www.all-about-debt.co.uk/page...n%202#temp-1-7
send the above along with the copy of the letter you've got saying they have not got the cca

I have to admit i have got a bit confused now is this the best action for me to take in my circumstances?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

I have to admit i have got a bit confused now is this the best action for me to take in my circumstances?

Yes. Read the template!

It's designed to be sent with a photocopy of a letter from the lender saying they cannot locate the agreement. You send the template & copy to whoever chases you for the debt.

They can and will chase/hassle & threaten you but without an agreement that's ALL they can do. No enforcement can occur.